The Royal Canon Library: Volume 8

On the Sixth and Twelfth dynasties of Manetho

Edward Hincks

On the portion of the Turin book of kings which corresponds to the Sixth Dynasty of Manetho.

by Dr. E. Hincks. (Read March 12th, 1846.)

As the attention of the Royal Society of Literature has been frequently directed to the Turin Book of Kings, and as the arrangement of its fragments in their proper order, so as to admit of its being compared with the lists of Manetho and Eratosthenes, is obviously of considerable importance, I trust that the present Paper, in which this object is effected so far as respects a very remarkable period, will be favourably received by the Society, though it comes from a stranger.

The mode of combining the different fragments, so as to exhibit what remains of this dynasty in connection, appears to me so very obvious, that I am surprised at its not having occurred to others. Attachment to a particular theory may, however, have shut their eyes against a fact which would not harmonize with it.

There is in Egyptian history a very remarkable concurrence of reigns; one that is so exceedingly improbable in itself, that its occurring twice cannot be thought of for a moment. In the list of kings attributed to Eratosthenes, we find — “20th, Apappus, who reigned one hundred years all to one hour.” It is natural to correct this to “all to one Horus, or season,” so that the reign would be ninety-nine years and eight months. “21 st, Echescosocaras, who reigned one year; 22nd, Nitocris, a queen, who reigned six years.”

In the sixth dynasty of Manetho we have “4th, Phiops, who began to reign when six years old, and reigned till one hundred years; 5th, Menthesuphis, who reigned one year; 6th, Nitocris, a queen, who reigned twelve years.” It has been frequently argued, and with reason, that the two lists of Manetho and Eratosthenes must coincide at this point, as well as at the commencement; that the same three sovereigns must be intended by both of them; and that the apparent discrepancy between them as to the sovereigns who precede and follow these three, however it may be accounted for, cannot be admitted as evidence that there were two queens Nitocris, and two kings who reigned near a hundred years, each followed by one who reigned but a single year.

Now I only ask that this principle shall be applied to the papyrus. If I find there a queen Nitocris, and before her a king with a reign of near a hundred years, followed by another who reigned only one year, I claim that these shall be admitted to be the sovereigns whom Manetho places in his sixth dynasty; and this notwithstanding any difficulty or impossibility which may exist in the harmonizing of the preceding and following kings with those in the list of Manetho. It is, surely, infinitely more probable that either the Turin papyrus is a false record, or the list of Manetho a corrupted one, and that attributed to Eratosthenes a forgery, than that the papyrus should have truly recorded two such combinations of sovereigns ; one in the place which I shall quote, and the other in some lost portion of it, where Nitocris was the last sovereign in a dynasty, and where the kings who preceded the one with the long reign corresponded with those mentioned by Manetho in his sixth dynasty.

I proceed to describe the part of the papyrus in which I find these reigns.

In the column which Dr. Lepsius numbers VI. (in the fourth Plate of his Monuments), there is a fragment numbered 59, which contains six lines, at the end of each of which is the word “king,” or a portion of it; the fragment extending so far above the first line as to render it certain that this was at the top of a column. Under this is placed a fragment numbered 61, which evidently belongs to the same column; but it does not immediately appear what interval originally existed between the two fragments. Dr. Lepsius has left the space of a single line between them, and has filled this up with a small fragment. No. 60, containing a portion of the word “king.” Now I have first to observe that the real interval must have exceeded this, as the following considerations will show. The first line of the lower fragment, No. 61, instead of containing, like the former lines, at its end, the beginning of the word “king,” has “making up 18 kings.” The figure of 8 is not complete; but the portion of it which remains can belong to no other figure. Now at the bottom of the preceding column (numbered V.) there are nine names of kings, or portions thereof, after the red mark which distinguishes the lines of summation interposed between the dynasties. From this we may infer that the following column contained nine more names of kings, and consequently that the first line in the fragment No. 61, which contains the sum, was the tenth line of the column. There were, thus, three intervening lines between the 59th and 61st fragments.

This being premised, I observe next that these two fragments contain not only the commencements of the lines in column VI., but the terminations of the lines in column V.; in which the number of years, and sometimes months and days also, that the kings of that column reigned, are mentioned. The majority of these are imperfect, but a few are fully preserved; and one that is only partially so has enough remaining to establish a point of the greatest importance. I allude to the fifth line, in which the length of the reign is stated to be “years 90.” A unit doubtless followed; but the portion of the papyrus which it occupied has been eaten away. The length of the next reign (line 6) is preserved entire, “year one, month one.” Here, then, we have a reign approximating in length to one hundred years, followed by one of a single year; and we must in reason suppose that these were the two kings who, according to the Greek lists, preceded Queen Nitocris. Some other numbers are given perfectly. The third king in the list is said to have reigned twenty years; the first reign in fragment No. 61, answering, as I have already shown, to the tenth in the column, was two years, a month, and. a day; the twelfth was precisely the same; the thirteenth was a year and eight days; and this is followed by one hundred and eighty-one years, evidently intended as the sum of the dynasty.

Here, then, we have a dynasty of thirteen reigns and one hundred and eighty-one years, where Manetho has one of six reigns and two hundred and three years; and where Eratosthenes, as interpreted by Chevalier Bunsen, has only three reigns and one hundred and seven years. The difference is a very great one; and with respect to Manetho I may add the important particular, that of the seven additional reigns mentioned in the papyrus, six follow that of Queen Nitocris, whom he places at the end of the dynasty. This may perhaps be accounted for by supposing that the reigns of all these kings were very short, and that the twelve years which he ascribes to Nitocris include these six reigns, as well as her own ; but the harmonizing of the reigns which preceded the long one with those given by Manetho, seems to me absolutely impossible; especially if we may read the remains of the figures expressing the fourth reign “44 years,” which is the natural, though perhaps not the only way of completing them. As to the figure wanting in the long reign, I remark that it could not have been a “nine,” for the tail of that figure would have extended to a portion of the papyrus which remains; neither was it followed by any number of months. I think it probable, therefore, that we should supply a “four” supposing that the authority followed in the papyrus stated this king to have reigned from six years old to one hundred years old, whereas Manetho or his extractors supposed him to have reigned for one hundred years complete.

The number of years attached to the several reigns being thus recovered, as far as may be, from the 59th and 6 1st fragments in the column marked VI., it remains to seek for the names in column V. The first fragment available is that numbered 43. It contains the names of four sovereigns, commencing with Nitokrit, the name being spelt nearly in the same manner as that of the well-known queen in the twenty-sixth dynasty. There can be no hesitation, then, I think, in placing this fragment so as that this name should occupy the seventh line in the column. If this be done, however, we must discard from this column the fragment numbered 41, which contains portions of six names of kings : it evidently does not join No. 43, nor can it contain, from the forms of the two fragments, the name next above Nitokrit: it has, therefore, one name more than there is room for in the column. There is nothing connected with this fragment. No. 41, which leads us to place it in this column rather than elsewhere. The small fragment, No. 42, may belong to this column or not ; I rather think, however, that it should accompany No. 41 to some other place. I have not been able to discover any other fragments which can be proved to belong to this dynasty, though others may do so for any thing that appears to the contrary; as the 19th fragment, for instance, which contains the name of King Sont. The names, however, of the third, fourth, and fifth kings of the dynasty may be restored with a high degree of probability from the monuments. Most persons will, I believe, admit that the sovereign who reigned ninety-four years was Merirâ Pepi. Now this king styled himself “the third Hawk of Gold,” from which it is a fair inference, that the kings who are styled “the second Hawk of Gold” (viz. Merenrâ) and “the Hawk of Gold” without qualification (viz. Senevru), were his predecessors, and the fourth and third kings of the dynasty. With respect to the three kings who follow Nitocris, the first is Neverker; and as there were many kings who bore this praenomen, the name is added for distinction. Only part of it, however, remains, and I cannot decipher it. The names of the other two kings have not, I helieve, heen found on the monuments. The last, if complete, signifies “a calf;” and reminds us of An, “the fish,” and Sont, “the goose.” I give at the end of the Paper a restoration of the dynasty, as far as it can he accomplished.

To reconcile this list with either of those given by Eratosthenes and Manetho, is, I readily acknowledge, beyond my ability. Perhaps, however, those who think they can reconcile these comparatively recent authorities with each other, may find means to reconcile them also with this more ancient one.

I must now say a few words as to the kings who are made to precede and follow this dynasty in the Turin papyrus. It begins, as we have seen, at the top of the column marked V. Now, at the bottom of the column preceding this, marked IV., we have three kings’ names at the close of a dynasty, which, as Chevalier Bunsen has pointed out, correspond pretty well to the three kings at the close of the fifth dynasty of Manetho. They are Men-ker-Har, Tat, and Ounas; Manetho’s being Mencheres, Tancheres, and Ounos. The numbers of years in their reigns, however, by no means agree. They are in the papyrus 8, 28, and 30 (clearly without an additional figure), and in Manetho 9, 44, and 33. In Manetho, too, the fifth dynasty contains only nine reigns; while the fifth dynasty of the papyrus (as we must call it, both from its preceding the sixth, and from its containing the above three names, corresponding to those which occupy the same position in Manetho’s list) has at least twenty-one names of kings; for there are so many in this column. In the line containing the sum, the number of kings begins with a 60. This, however, was probably the number from Menes.

The dynasty following the sixth in the papyrus contains eighteen reigns. To what dynasty of Manetho can this be made to correspond? To none, certainly, of those which intervene between the sixth and the twelfth. After these eighteen, we have a series of six kings, the fifth of whom is the twenty-sixth in the Karnak table, and the second at the Memnonium. Chevalier Bunsen supposed him to be the “Chuther” of the list of Eratosthenes, as we have it now; but he considers “Chuther” to be a corruption of “Mentuphis.” However this may be, his successor in the papyrus is clearly not the twenty-seventh king in the Karnak table. From the end of this series Dr. Lepsius passes at once to the twelfth dynasty; but I suspect he has omitted a column between those numbered VI. and VII., or perhaps transposed it to “the middle kingdom.” Even so, however, it is quite obvious that the five dynasties which Manetho places between the sixth and the twelfth are not all enumerated in the papyrus. Two, if not three, of them must be omitted.

My object in making this statement is not to maintain any chronological theory, but to elicit the truth. Extracts from the papyrus have been adduced, which appeared to harmonize with Manetho. I have thought it desirable that a comparison of the papyrus with the Greek lists should be made at greater length, so that it might clearly appear how far they were consistent. The result of the comparison appears to be this. The papyrus contains a much greater number of kings than the list of Manetho does, and it differs from the latter, to a great extent, in the lengths of the reigns ascribed to the kings. In order to make the two lists agree, we must suppose that either Manetho himself, or those who made the extracts from his work, which alone we now possess, omitted a great number of short reigns of two years and under, distributing the sum of these reigns among the kings whose names they retained; and we must suppose further, that the list, thus intentionally falsified by the omission of short reigns, has been again corrupted, in the numbers as well as in the names, by the mistakes of copyists; in other words, we must suppose that the list of Manetho, as it now stands, is in so corrupt a state, that no dependence whatever can be placed on it, though there are indications, here and there, of the true reading of the list from which it was originally taken. Such, I conceive, must be the view of the subject taken by any person who believes the papyrus to contain an authentic record. He may regard Manetho’s dynasties as a corruption of this record, sometimes, but rarely, preserving its true reading; but I cannot conceive that such a person can believe even thus far in the list attributed to Eratosthenes. He must believe it to be the clumsy fabrication of some ignorant person; it is, as it appears to me, utterly irreconcilable with the papyrus.

Those, then, who are disposed to regard it as genuine, and as possessing authority, have, in my opinion, no other alternative than to reject the authority of the papyrus altogether. They must not at the same time uphold two contradictory writings as trustworthy documents.

Edward Hincks.
Killyleagh, 7th March, 1846.


N. B. Where a line is drawn across, or a word or words bracketed, the papyrus is mutilated or illegible. In the latter case the words are supplied by inference from other statements, as explained in the Paper.

V.[cartouchecartoucheMerirâ Pepi]9[4]00
VIII.cartouchecartoucheNeverker ?―――**
X.cartouche. . . Av ?11
    The sum     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .18100

*Number not quite certain.
**Second name incomplete and undeciphered.

P.S. Mr. Cullimore has directed my attention to an interesting and important fact, connected with the foregoing Paper. In a list of the Egyptian dynasties, in barbarous Latin, published by Scaliger, and derived from Castor, or, as Mr. Cullimore thinks, from Apion Grammaticus, the fifth dynasty is said to have contained twenty-one reigns, the very number which is found in the papyrus; and to have lasted two hundred and fifty-eight years, giving a like low average length of each reign to what the papyrus gives us for the following dynasty. The great number of short reigns which appear in all parts of the papyrus accounts in a satisfactory manner for these low averages.

– E. H.

On the portion of the Turin book of kings which follows that corresponding to the Twelfth Dynasty of Manetho.[*]

By Dr. E. Hincks. (Read May 28th, 1846.)

In a Paper which was read before the Royal Society of Literature on the 12th of March, I showed what statements were contained in the celebrated royal papyrus at Turin, respecting the so-called sixth dynasty. As a proper sequel to this, I am now going to lay before the Society some observations respecting the statements which it makes concerning the dynasties that follow the twelfth. I must begin with remarking that there will be a material difference in my modes of treating the subject in these two Papers. In the former one, I adopted in the main the arrangement of the fragments made by Dr. Lepsius, as being in that part substantially correct ; but it will be my chief business in the present Paper to show that his arrangement of those subsequent to the 12th dynasty is, as to the most important points, erroneous; and, from the nature of the subject, the validity of my arguments can only be estimated by those who have the fac-simile of the papyrus before them, and who will follow me with the compass and scale. I will here state, once for all, that I do not impute bad faith to Dr. Lepsius, though I consider his method of proceeding a very uncritical one. It was evidently his object to arrange the fragments so as to produce the greatest possible degree of conformity between the papyrus and the tablet of Karnak. Believing both of these to be authentic records, he believed that they must needs harmonize with each other; and he arranged the parts of the papyrus with a view to obtain this harmony. It would, however, have been a far more critical course to have sought for data, in the papyrus itself, by which its fragments might be arranged in their proper order; and, when this was done, to have compared the two documents with one another, with a view to ascertain if they agreed or differed as to the order of the kings whose names were found in both. This is the course which I mean to pursue in the present Paper. I will first show, from evidence furnished by the papyrus itself, that the arrangement of the fragments adopted by Dr. Lepsius in his fifth Plate is an impossible one. I will point out the correction necessary to be made; and I will show that, by making it, the apparent agreement between these two documents, which now exists, will be destroyed; so that one of the two, at least, must be rejected as unworthy of credit.

In seeking for data in the papyrus itself, by which the order of its fragments may be determined, I was naturally led to inquire whether the length of a column of the writing could be discovered. If it could, as the columns in papyri are always nearly of the same length, a limit would be furnished, which must not be exceeded by any proposed combination of fragments in a column. Now this length is actually given in the column containing the sixth dynasty. The 59th fragment is at the top of this column, containing parts of those numbered V. and VI., and it extends below its 6th line. The 43rd fragment contains portions of the four lines following the 6th ; the 61st contains the conclusions of the last of these lines and of the six following that is, of the 10th to the 16th lines of the column; and the 46th, 47th, and 48th which are connected, contain the commencements of the last ten lines of the column. The first of these is the sixth line in the 61st fragment; for both of these contain the heading of the dynasty which follows the sixth. That the first line in fragment 46 contains this, appears from the red ink used at its commencement; and that the sixth line in fragment 61 contains it also, appears from the summation of the sixth dynasty being given in the fifth line of this fragment. At the end of this dynasty, and at the end of the twelfth, there appear very clearly to be two lines, distinguished by commencing with red ink, interposed between the kings of one dynasty and those of the next; the first containing the summation of the reigns and years of the former dynasty; and the second containing a heading to the latter. Now the 6th line of the 61st fragment is the 15th line of the column, and as this is followed by nine lines in fragments 46, 47, and 48, the last line in the column is the 24th; and the writing in the column appears, from actual measurement, to have extended over 12*7 inches. The column numbered IV. contains, in like manner, a series of connected fragments extending over 22 lines, which occupy 12*2 inches. The last of these lines contains the sum of the reigns and years in the dynasty preceding the sixth; and, as the sixth dynasty oommences at the top of the following column, there is just one line wanting in this fourth column, containing the heading of the sixth dynasty.

This would occupy about half an inch. The length of this column would thus be 12*7 inches, the same as that of the following; but it contained only 23 lines, in place of 24. With respect to these two columns, I adopt the arrangement of the fragments made by Dr. Lepsius, as unquestionably right. It appears to me, however, quite evident that the fragments numbered 41 and 44, wherever else they belong to, have been improperly placed in their present positions. As to the part of the column, numbered VI., which is connected with the preceding column, namely, the fragments numbered 59-63, there can, of course, be no question; but I am now going to show that with respect to the fragments numbered 64-67, containing the beginning of the twelfth dynasty, and with respect to the columns numbered VII., VIII., and IX., the arrangement proposed by Dr. Lepsius is altogether erroneous.

The column which follows that containing the twelfth dynasty contains to the end of the 63rd fragment 10*7 inches, breaking off in the middle of the 18th line. It contains nine kings of the dynasty following the sixth, the summation of the eighteen reigns of that dynasty, the heading of the next dynasty, and ends in the line containing the seventh king of this dynasty. This is parallel to the fifth line from the top of the 46th fragment; and it is impossible that more than five additional names could be contained in the column. Yet Dr. Lepsius has appended to this the portion of the papyrus containing the commencement of the twelfth dynasty; namely, seven lines, occupying 4*2 inches. It is quite impossible that these lines should belong to the same column as that which I have just described. They must be the conclusion of some other column; and I can see no reason for supposing that they were the conclusion of that which next followed the one in which they are now improperly placed. For ought that appears to the contrary, one or two entire columns may have intervened. We have ample room, then, in this place, for the fragments in Dr. Lepsius’s columns VIII. and IX., which I will show to be improperly placed there.

The upper part of Dr. Lepsius’s fifth Plate contains the commencements of three adjoining columns. Respecting their order and connection, there can be no doubt. I would only observe that the small fragment No. 73, which Dr. Lepsius has interposed between two portions of the first of the three columns, must be removed about a quarter of an inch to the left; and, in order to make room for it, the fragment No. 74 must be taken away. Unless this change in the position of No. 73 be made, there will not be room for the characters corresponding to the eye and the owl, which, according to the analogy of many similar lines, must have preceded the word signifying ‘reigning,’ which begins the 73rd fragment. “He passed in reigning, one year, three months, and twenty-four days.”

Of the three commencements of columns which occur in this Plate, the first contains thirteen lines, occupying 6*8 inches. The two first of these lines contain the names of the two last reigns of the twelfth dynasty; the third contains the summation of the reigns, and of the years, months, and days, that they occupied; the fourth, the title or heading of the next dynasty; and then follow nine lines with names of kings. The second colunm contains eight names of kings, occupying 4*2 inches, in its upper portion; and the third contains portions of eleven lines, extending over 5½ inches in continuity ; but a fragment, No. 98, evidently belonging to this column, and containing portions of some of the last lines in the preceding one, carries the connection to the fourteenth line at least, seven inches from the top. This is according to Dr. Lepsius’s arrangement; but I rather think — indeed I have no doubt — that he has placed the 98th fragment too high, and that the last line is either the fifteenth or sixteenth in the column.

I now come to consider the fragments which Dr. Lepsius has arranged in the lower part of this Plate. The principal of these is compounded of those numbered 76-79, which are evidently connected. I must observe, however, that Dr. Lepsius has made the lateral interval between No. 76 and the others too great by about *4 inch, as appears from the consideration of several words, which begin in No. 76 and conclude in No. 77. Now the great error with which I charge Dr. Lepsius is, that in order to bring the papyrus to harmonize with the Karnak tablet, he has placed this combination of fragments at the foot of the first column in Plate V., instead of at the foot of the second column. The proof of this dislocation which I offer is, that if this compound fragment be placed in the first column, that column will considerably exceed the standard length. The compound fragment contains fourteen lines, extending over 7*5 inches. If this could be immediately connected with the portion of the first column, under which it is now placed, we should have 27 lines and 14*3 inches, in addition to the interval between the bottom of the thirteenth line and the top of the fourteenth, which would be about *2 in. The papyrus itself, however, furnishes evidence that this would not suffice. Over the first line in the 77th fragment there is a projecting blank space, and under the last line in the upper part of the column is another. Dr. Lepsius, by that lateral displacement of the 77th fragment, to which I have adverted, has prevented these projections from interposing; but when the correction which I have pointed out is made, one would lie just over the other. The sum of these two projections exceeds *4 inch: and, as this is too great for the interval between two adjacent lines, it would follow, that if these fragments belonged to the same column, at least one line must intervene between them. This would give, at the very least, 28 lines in the column, occupying 15 inches; being 2*3 inches and four or five lines above the standard.

This is the minimum length of the column, as inferred from the papyrus itself. In arguing, however, with those who would advocate the correctness of its present position, on account of its thus harmonizing with the Karnak tablet, I have a right to inquire whether any other condition as to the length of the column is imposed on us by the assumed necessity of maintaining this harmony. I find that there is. Chevr. Bunsen says (vol. iii. p. 41) that “at least two names” must be added to the end of the compound fragment ; which names intervene in the Karnak list between the last name in the compound fragment and the name at the top of the following column. We have thus 30 lines, altogether, in the column, and 16 inches, in place of the 23 or 24 lines, and the 12*7 inches, which are found in other columns of known length. This is, I may safely say, an inadmissible hypothesis. The compound fragment must, therefore, be transferred to the second column, where it will just fit in. If we suppose its top line to be the ninth of the column, or that which next follows the upper portion, the last line will be the 22nd, and the length will be about 12 inches to the bottom oi this line. The column must have contained one line more than this, and that line may have either intervened between the two fragments, or followed the lower one. I will adopt the former supposition as the more probable. I may here mention that an argument has been founded on the resemblance between the royal names in the large compound fragment and those in the second column of Plate V., in favour of its immediately preceding the latter. This argument is not of a conclusive nature, and should not be admitted to weigh against the positive argument drawn from the length of the column of writing ; and yet it has some force, apparently, as the resemblance between the praenomens is certainly very great. The connection between the fragments which contain these similar names is, however, just as well preserved by placing the compound fragment, as I do, immediately after the names at the top of the middle column, as by placing them, with Dr. Lepsius, before them.

On grounds similar to those on which I remove the combination of fragments 76-79 from the bottom of the first column in Plate V., I remove the fragment numbered 101, and those in connection with it, from the bottom of the thml column. This contains twelve lines and a portion of a thirteenth ; and if it were even assumed that it immediately joined No. 98, which, from the appearance of the two fragments, is scarcely admissible, it would make the number of lines in the column at least 27 ; or rather, at least 28, since the figure of 8 at the top of No. 98 does not correspond with the 7th line in No. 81, of which it is made to be a continuation, but must be a part of the 8th line in the column, or possibly of the 9th. The length of the column would also be in the same proportion excessive.

I am not prepared to say where No. 101 should be placed; but I think it probable that it, together with a number of fragments in the following Plate, should be placed in some of the columns preceding the twelfth dynasty, which Dr. Lepsius has suppressed. The restoration of these fragments to their proper order is a work which can only be effected at the Turin Museum, if indeed it can be effected even there ; but I regard it as quite certain that their present order is incorrect; and that, in particular, the separation of the beginning of the twelfth dynasty from the column with which it is now connected, and the transfer of the great compound fragment from the first to the second column of Plate V., are imperatively required.

I have now to compare the order in which the names which are common to the papyrus and to the Karnak tablet are found in these two places. Fortunately, all these names occur in the parts of the papyrus which have had their relative positions satisfactorily determined. I will number the Karnak names on the right hand of the tablet from 1 to 30, as Chevalier Bunsen has done, which amounts to the same thing as deducting 3 1 from each of Dr. Lepsius’s numbers ; and I will number the names in the papyrus from the close of the twelfth dynasty. The first name in the papyrus is the 20th at Karnak. Chevr. Bunsen, indeed, reads it differently, supposing the first character to be an arm holding a cone, — i.e. ti, ‘giver,’ in place of an arm holding a whip, — i.e. khu, ‘director;’ but the hieratic character for the former is never made as here, nor indeed would ‘giver of Egypt’ be a likely title for a Pharaoh to assume. The following name is said by Chevr. Bunsen to be the first Karnak name; but, as only one character of that name remains, it would be more correct to say, that it cannot be proved that it is not the same with it.

The three following names do not occur among the preserved names on the right-hand side of the Karnak tablet; and the second Karnak name certainly does not occur in this part of the papyrus. The sixth in the papyrus is the third at Karnak. The three next do not occur among the Karnak names; and there followed at least nine names of kings which are lost. Eleven lines of the papyrus are wanting, but it is probable that two of these contained the summation of a dynasty, and the heading of another.

The first name in the next column of the papyrus, which I will call the 19th, though it was possibly the 21 St, is the 10th at Karnak. The name is mutilated; but according to Dr. Lepsius, though not according to Mr. Burton, there is enough left to identify it. The six following names in the papyrus are distinctly legible; and nothing like any of them occurs at Karnak among the names preceding or following the 10th. The third of them, however, the 22nd of the series, occupies the 21st place in the tablet.

The next name, the 26th, is imperfect. Chevalier Bunsen is disposed to identify it with the 14th at Karnak; but this is not certain, nor do I think it probable. The 27th name is wanting; the five next are all distinctly legible, and are not in the Karnak list. The next name, the 33rd, though somewhat mutilated, is so far preserved as to make it certain that it is the 4th at Karnak, with which Chevalier Bunsen also identifies it.

The 34th and 37th names in the papyrus certainly do not correspond with any Karnak names; the 35th and 36th are so much mutilated that it cannot be said whether they do or not. The 38th is partly defaced. Chevalier Bunsen thinks it may be the 5th name at Karnak, which is wholly defaced. The 39th name is only partially preserved, and may or may not be the same as the 6th at Karnak. The 40th is certainly not among the Karnak names, but the 41st is certainly the 7th name at Karnak.

It appears, then, that six names occur in the papyrus which occur also at the right-hand side of the Karnak tablet. Their order is as follows:

P. 1 = K. 20P. 19 = K. 10P. 83 = K. 4
P.6 = K. 3P.22 = K.21P.41 = K.7

Looking to these coincidences only, and numbering the names in the papyrus, as I have done, no one would ever think of recognizing the two lists as containing the same names in the same order: but if the first and fourth of these coincidences be rejected or unnoticed ; if the series of names in the papyrus, P. 29-41 , be interposed between P. 9 and P. 19 ; and if four coincidences be, rather illogically, assumed to exist because it cannot be proved that they do not, viz.

P.2 = K.1P.27 = K.14P.38 = K.5P.39 = K.6

then, indeed, a plausible case may be made out. Yet, after all these arbitrary assumptions, there are still insuperable difficulties, as it appears to me, in the way of receiving this hypothesis. The 2nd, and again the 11th and 13th Karnak shields, can by no management be made to coincide with those in the papyrus, to which, according to the hypothesis, they should correspond.

Taking all these circumstances into account, it appears to me that we are reduced to an alternative very similar to that at which I arrived in my former Paper. If the papyrus be admitted to be an authentic document, the Karnak tablet must be abandoned, as being nothing more than a collection of figures and names of former kings, placed together without any regard to chronological order. If, on the other hand, any one chooses to uphold the Karnak tablet as an historical document, he must, in order to be consistent, reject the papyrus as of no authority.

Edward Hincks.
Killyleagh, 5th May, 1846.

*The reader is requested to refer to Plates III. to VII. in the ‘Auswahl der Wichtigsten Urkunden des Aegyptischen Alterthums’ by Dr. R. Lepsius, Leipz. 1842.